abc@brl-smoke.ARPA (Brint Cooper ) (09/24/86)
A few days ago, I asked that the discussion on drug testing be conducted in net.general so that those of us with censored newsgroups would have a chance to read and participate. There are, it turns out, very good reasons why this is not advisable. Many friendly folks have taken the trouble to write and explain this to me. To them, I am grateful. However, not all folks were friendly, polite, or even humane. Today I received a cruel, vicious response from someone who knows me not -- who knows nothing of my habits, my lifestyle, or my health. Nevertheless, he felt that he was competent to comment on all. I have attached his response to my plea followed by my answer to him. It just seemed to me that this kind of attitude needs to be exposed for what it is. Thanks to all the good folks out there who deal with tough subjects with care and sensitivity. Brint ----------- > From: seismo!hplabs!felix!fritz!rlong (Roger L. Long) > To: hplabs!seismo!brl-smoke!abc > Subject: Re: The war on drugs (really, where this discussion goes) > > In article <3874@brl-smoke.ARPA> you write: > >Please keep this discussion in net.general. > > Let's not. > > > Some of us work at sites > >funded by public money. At such sites, groups like net.rec..xxx and > >talk.xxx are filtered from the users because they are not relevant to > >our "official" duties. > > Such discussions don't belong in net.general. In fact, net.general has > outlived its usefulness since mod.announce was created. If you have a > problem with which newsgroups your organization supports, deal with that. > Putting noise into net.general is not the answer. > > > Yet, many of us may be the first targets of the > >latest witch hunt, the likes of which the country may not have seen > >since the activity of the late Senator Joseph McCarthy. The group > >net.general may be the only way we can discuss how we can protect > >ourselves from careless or erroneously performed lab studies and other > >attacks on us. > > Well, from my point of view, those of us who have nothing to worry about > could care less whether we are tested or not. I support drug testing and > won't shed a tear when those who test positive loose their jobs. If you > have something to worry about with these tests, then you better do something > about it, like switch jobs or stop using drugs. It's as simple as that! > Date: Tue, 23 Sep 86 19:03:21 EDT From: Brint Cooper <abc@brl> To: seismo!hplabs!felix!fritz!rlong@BRL Subject: Re: The war on drugs (really, where this discussion goes) I appreciate your taking your valuable time to answer my posting. Now, let me appraise you of the facts: 1. I am NOT a drug user. I am an electronics engineer, age 47, with a debilitating neuromuscular illness called Myasthenia Gravis. At my age and state of health, a change of job is out of the question. It's simply that no other employer would have me. 2. Holding a security clearance puts me in the group of federal employees covered by the Executive Order mandating drug testing. 3. In order to cope with my illness, I take, at the orders of my Physician, an over-the-counter (not prescription) medicine called Ephedrine Sulfate. Ephedrine has a chemical structure very similar to the amphetemine known as "speed." It is very likely that I will test postive for amphetemines. 4. Even without that complication, false positives on such tests have occurred in from 1% to 20% of the cases tested, depending on the laboratory. Lab tests cost from $35 to $200 each. Guess which ones make the most mistakes. Given the penchant for buying from the lowest bidder, guess who gets the job? 5. Given the "two strikes and you're out" hysteria in the White House, guess what happens to me? Of course, it's obvious from the pleasant tone and polite language of your letter that you really don't give a damn. It's your right not to give a damn. But you're WRONG -- you're DEAD WRONG! You don't have to admit it. But you are. -- Brint Cooper ARPA: abc@brl.arpa UUCP: ...{seismo,unc,decvax,cbosgd}!brl-smoke!abc
rjb@akgud.UUCP (rjb) (09/30/86)
When I made a denunciation of random drug testing based on the
several ammendments to the Constitution that I think it violates
plus the violence it does to the principles of "Presumption of
Innocence" and "Probable Cause", a respondent suggested that if
I pressed the issue far enough that I would be accused of being
a drug user. Well it hasn't happened to me, but as you recently
have seen Mr Cooper has been somewhat smeared by people who
smugly write "I have nothing to fear, I'm not a drug user,..."
and tacitly imply that if you object to the testing then you
have something to hide. I'm a generally conservative person
but I know tyranny a-comin' when I see it. McCarthy lives !
--
Bob Brown {...ihnp4!akgua!rjb}
This is what i think...WHO knows what the Corporate genii up Nawth think ??rb@cci632.UUCP (Rex Ballard) (10/09/86)
In article <119@akgud.UUCP> rjb@akgud.UUCP (rjb) writes: > >When I made a denunciation of random drug testing based on the >several ammendments to the Constitution that I think it violates >plus the violence it does to the principles of "Presumption of >Innocence" and "Probable Cause", a respondent suggested that if >I pressed the issue far enough that I would be accused of being >a drug user. Well it hasn't happened to me, but as you recently >have seen Mr Cooper has been somewhat smeared by people who >smugly write "I have nothing to fear, I'm not a drug user,..." >and tacitly imply that if you object to the testing then you >have something to hide. I'm a generally conservative person >but I know tyranny a-comin' when I see it. McCarthy lives ! >Bob Brown {...ihnp4!akgua!rjb} The Constitutional protections are there to prevent deprivation of "Life or Liberty or property" without "due process". If testing could lead to criminal prosecution, then it would probably be unconstitutional. If instead, it would only lead to an offer of appropriate medical treatment, then it would make sense to include tests for diabetes as well as drugs. The AMA considers alcoholism a desease, and also addiction to certain other chemicals. If someone were put in jail for having diabetes and not knowing it, there would be public outrage. The same should be true for drugs. On the other hand, once a person is aware they have a problem, they have a responsibility to do something about it. If the diabetic knew he was diabetic, knew he was having an "attack" and still insisted on driving, doing something else that could threaten the safety of others, he would be negligent at best, and criminally responsible at worst. Now the big question is, can a sick person be compelled to accept treatment? The issue is unresolved. Gov. Lamm says no, but many others say yes.